One of the authors has made a complete solution manual available to students in several recent classes, and found some interesting positive results. Students were less frustrated and intimidated by problems. They found it easier to get help doing a problem, anywhere, anytime, without having to ask for it. They worked on more problems, even many that were not assigned. For most students, the negative consequences some colleagues predicted would happen (less learning, copying without first trying, etc.) either didn't occur, or were insignificant or outweighed by positive consequences.
A review of the educational research literature found nothing on the specific subject of allowing students free access to solutions to the problems in their text, although there is much on the general subject of immediate feedback (e.g. Slavin, 1994; Sisco & Hiemstra, 1991). In order to better identify the specific pedagogical questions related to this topic, the attitudes of physics instructors and students ought to be surveyed and examined. What are their beliefs, are these beliefs reconcilable, and can they be tested against actual data from classroom studies? To begin with, an opinion survey of introductory physics instructors was conducted, as described in this paper. The gathering of this information is important because the assumptions instructors make, both explicitly and implicitly, about the control of access to the knowledge problem solutions represent, should be subject to reflection, since they have implications for classroom dynamics, educational goals, and student outcomes. A parallel opinion survey of introductory physics students was subsequently conducted, and will be the subject of further research. Survey Instrument Since no effort was made to select potentially cooperative respondents, and no inducement was offered for their participation, the survey instrument was kept intentionally brief. It was designed to be completed in under 15 min. Four questions utilized a combination of Likert-scale and open-ended formats, so that the respondent's answers could be readily summarized statistically, yet not be unduly constrained. The open-ended question, about the consequences of completely free student access to all problem solutions, was impartially phrased, and allowed for a maximum diversity of answers in the respondents' own words. The fill-in question required just a single numerical answer. Also queried were three bits of demographic information about the respondents, their highest academic degree, the length of their teaching experience at the introductory level, and the type of undergraduate program, two or four year, at their institution. Space was included for name and address, at the respondent's option, and for further comments. The full text of the questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A.
Sample Selection and Demographics
Questionnaires were mailed to physics departments at 475 arbitrarily selected US and Canadian colleges and universities. Institutions were chosen, by one of the authors, from the AIP Directory of Physics and Astronomy Staff (1993). Although the list contained the addresses of more institutions from areas with numerous colleges and universities, an effort was made to include some from every state and province, as well as a mix of two and four year colleges and universities. Physics, physics and astronomy, or physical science departments with fewer than five members were not considered. This was the same procedure as followed in previous surveys of teaching faculty in introductory physics courses (George, 1994).
Responses from a total of 249 individuals, including 233 at 104 identifiable institutions, were eventually returned. (Actually, optional names and addresses were supplied by only 135 respondents, but by checking postmarks and grouping questionnaires returned in the same envelope, additional institutions were identified.) The geographical distribution of responses, from 22% of the institutions selected, showed no discernible bias, & the absolute number of individual responses, equal to 52% of the number of mailed requests, was comparable to previous surveys (George, 1994).
The majority of individuals responding to the survey were Ph.D's working at four year institutions, with ten or more years teaching experience at the introductory level. In brief, 79% had doctoral, 12% had master's, and 4% had bachelor's highest degrees; 88% worked at four year and 7% at two year institutions; 71% had 10 or more, 15% had 4 to 9, and 9% had 1 to 3 years introductory-level teaching experience; 5% reported no information; 56% belonged to all three majority sub-categories. A summary of the number of responses in all categories, and possible combinations of sub-categories, is given in Table 1. Since few of the sub-categories contain more than 25 responses, or about 10% of the respondent sample, it was decided to analyze all the responses as a whole, and forego an analysis of variance in this study.
Table 1
Number of Responses for Demographic Categories.
|
|
Years of Experience | Bachelor's Degree | Master's Degree | Doctoral Degree | No information |
| 1-3 years: |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 yrs. of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 years of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
|
| --------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4-9 years: |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 yrs. of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 years of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| No information |
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
|
| --------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 years or more: |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 yrs. of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 years of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| No information |
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
|
| --------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| No information: |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 yrs. of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 years of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| No information |
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
|
| --------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
| Totals: |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 yrs. of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 years of college |
|
|
|
|
|
| No information |
|
|
|
|
|
| Subtotal |
|
|
|
|
|
Numerical Results A statistical summary for Questions #1 to #4 is given in Table 2 and in Figure 1. The numerical response on the Likert-scale of 1 to 5 was used as the variable.
Table 2. Averages and Correlations for Questions #1 to #4.
| Question | No. of Answers | Average & Standard Deviation | Correlations of Questions 1-4 |
|
|
|
| #1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| #2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| #3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| #4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Percent response distributions for Likert-scale Questions #1 to #4.
The correlations for responses to Questions #2, #3, and #4 are positive among themselves, but are negative when taken with responses to Question #1 (see Table 2). In other words, instructors who believed most in restricting access to solutions to assigned problems, tended to feel the same way about unassigned problems, and that free access would not encourage students to do more problems, but would cause them to work less hard on the ones they did (agree with #1, disagree with #2, 3, & 4). Instructors favoring unrestricted access to solutions to unassigned problems, tended to feel that free access would encourage students to do more problems and cause them to give up less quickly (agree with #2, 3, & 4). Some of the reasons given by respondents for such correlations are discussed below.
The single numerical response requested in Question #6 was the respondent's estimation of the ideal percentage of end-of-chapter problems that ought to be included in a student solution manual available for purchase along with the text. Responses varied on a continuum scale from 0% to 100%. Some interpretive judgment was necessary in tabulating them, since not all respondents answered with a single number; sometimes a range was specified, for example, "_< 20%", "20 ± 15%", or "50 - 100%". The average of the 232 responses, probably of interest to college textbook publishers, was 41%. Most respondents specified one of three percentages, namely 50%, 0%, or 100%, with most of the rest choosing one of four others between 20% and 40%, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Percent response distribution for Question #6.
Narrative Results Non-numerical data included 244 responses (or 98% of the total) recorded to Question #5, the only totally open-ended one. Some type of written comment was supplied along with the numerical answers for most of the combination Likert-scale/open-ended questions (76% for Question #1, 71% for Question #2, 72% for Question #3, and 74% for Question #4). Additional comments, on the reverse side of the question page, were voluntarily supplied by 54 respondents (or 22%), and 135 (or 54%) opted to write in their name and address. Only two questionnaires were returned with no written comments whatsoever. This indicates a reasonable degree of involvement for those who completed the survey instrument.
Remarks written by respondents, in description or explanation of an answer to a particular question, frequently applied to other questions as well. For this reason, a systematic attempt to categorize comments question by question was deemed repetitive. The most inclusive question was #5, the only totally open-ended one, and the one with the greatest number of written comments. Therefore, this question was selected as the focus of efforts towards a systematic characterization of instructors opinions about the subject of the survey in general. Frequently cited opinions not within the range of responses to Question #5, and samples of comments or excerpted remarks, are noted afterwards.
The 244 responses to Question #5 varied considerably in focus, specificity, and length, so that objective, logically consistent, and mutually exclusive categories could not be readily formulated. The question asked generally about the "result" of unrestricted access. Some responses focused on the consequences for teaching methods or the instructor's responsibilities, while others focused on learning outcomes or the student's behavior. Another group of responses mainly characterized the overall effect, in varying degrees of detail, as pedagogically good or bad. Finally, many responses were partially of one type and partially of another (these were sometimes double counted), while others were of neither type. The percentage of the total number of responses to Question #5 in each of the subjective categories used for tabulation is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Percentage of Comments to Question #5 of Various Types.
| Type of comment |
|
| Instructor-Focused: Impact grading and/or source of homework problems |
|
| Student Focused: |
|
| Stimluate copying and memorization vs. independent thinking |
|
| Irrestistible tempatation not to struggle with problem |
|
| Foster illusion of knowledge |
|
| Over-all effect on learning: |
|
| Non-specific/negative (i.e. detrimental) |
|
| positive (i.e. beneficial) |
|
| neutral (i.e. irrelevant) |
|
| Specific to caliber of the student |
|
| Raise homework grades, reduce exam scores |
|
| Not categorized |
|
The instructor-focused category included about 22% of the total responses to Question #5. These mentioned one or both of the following likely "results". First, unrestricted student access to problem solutions would impact the standard practice of assigning homework for credit. (The standard practice is to collect and grade student's written answers to assigned problems from the text, for inclusion in determining the course grade.) Responses suggested that this practice would have to be modified or abandoned. Second, alternative sources of problems would have to be found, presumably with solutions unavailable to students, if, as assumed in most of these responses, the standard practice of assigning homework for credit were to be maintained. Responses suggested that instructors would be forced to devise original problems or switch to another text.
Examples of responses in this category are:
"If they [i.e. solutions] are not restricted, the use of homework [i.e. graded problems] would have to be rethought. However, I'm not certain that the current system is best for student learning, so rethinking may not be bad.",
"...it would be the end of giving students credit for homework.", "Using them for grades would be meaningless [however] students need the motivation of grades to study effectively.", "It will force the professors to come up with their own problems. Otherwise, homework as a useful exercise (which in general it is) will be a thing of the past.",
"I would have to make up other problems to assign for homework, or simply switch to another text.", "It would require ... professors to use some imagination in creating their own problems for graded homework...".
In the student-focused category of responses to Question #5, behavior of the following types was predicted to be the "result" of unrestricted access. First, more copying or memorizing of the available solutions, and less independent thinking, by students, was mentioned in about 21% of the total responses. Second, roughly 11% of responses suggested that students would be tempted to not exert their maximum effort struggling with, or working independently on, the problems. Third, slightly over 4% of responses warned that students might obtain a false sense of security from freely available solutions, acquiring only the illusion of knowledge.
Examples from this category of responses are:
"There would be no point in assigning problems to be handed in, since students would simply copy the solutions. Students would memorize the solutions, expecting to see the same problems on exams." "Many, if not most, of the students would copy the solutions without thinking about the problems."
"Blatant copying.",
"... most would submit to the temptation to rely heavily on the answers, rather than [on] their own initiative.", "I think students must struggle a little with the [homework] and that they shouldn't have their own copy of all [the] solutions. If they did, this struggle wouldn't occur."
"Few ... students would exert the effort to do the problems and thus learn the material," "[Free access] Would encourage a false understanding ... based on an attitude of 'I followed how it was done in the solution manual, therefore I understand it and can do it on a test."
In the overall-effect category for Question #5, the non-specific responses characterized unrestricted access as generally detrimental, beneficial, or irrelevant to student learning. Approximately 14% of the total responses foresaw a negative effect, 11% a positive effect, and 4% no appreciable effect. About 9% of the total responses suggested results which differentiated between good students, who would be helped, poor students, who would be hurt, and indifferent students, who would be unaffected by free access to solutions. Roughly 5% predicted specifically (and perhaps sarcastically) that homework grades would improve, although a majority of these coupled this rise with a fall in exam scores or the level of conceptual understanding.
A few examples from this category of responses are:
"Lower test scores, lower achievement, lower levels of understanding, much reduced critical thinking/problem solving skills."
"Less frustration and a more positive attitude of students towards goals of instruction, maybe a more responsible behavior in regard to their own learning." "No effect.", "Some will simply copy; some will use the solutions properly, after trying the problem. In seeing many problems (more than can be presented in class), the students must, on the whole, learn more." "Homework scores would go up, but test scores would go down."
Many written responses to Question #1 alluded to the standard practice of assigning, collecting, and grading homework problems, mentioned above, as a rationale for restricting student access to solutions. Typically, such restrictions involved posting the solutions to assigned problems on a bulletin board (actual, or an archival or electronic equivalent), at appropriate times (after homework was collected or returned), in a manner which discouraged the circulation of hard-copies among students. Because the selection of assigned problems varies from year to year, and from instructor to instructor, this implied, for many respondents, that access to the solutions to unassigned problems must also be restricted, thus contributing to the negative correlation between the Likert-scale variables in Questions # 1 and #2. However, recognizing the positive contribution readily available solutions can have for student learning outcomes, some respondents favored restricting access to only assigned problems, so the correlation is weak.
Examples of comments on either side of this correlation are:
"Students will accumulate files of problem solutions. This restricts which problems I can assign next semester."
"Any extra work the students want to do, even if it's just examining other solutions, is good!".
Respondents who favored making the solutions to unassigned problems available to students, in answer to Question #2, tended to comment affirmatively in answer to Questions #3 and #4, for example:
"...Making solutions freely available encourages students to try more problems and to discuss solutions with their instructor."
"Even if they work backward, they've learned something."
"Lack of validation frequently turns them back and causes them to give up.".
Conversely, respondents who disagreed with allowing access to unassigned problem solutions, in Question #2, tended to disagree with the statements in Questions #3 and #4, for example:
" Students will usually do the minimum possible...", "The more materials they have access to, the less they use."
"Having solutions causes them to seek help before they have fully thought through a problem.".
Both these types of responses contributed to positive correlations among the Likert-scale responses to Questions #2, #3, and #4. There were many neutral answers to Question #3, expressed in comments like "In theory [perhaps] - but they [i.e. students] are busy enough to make it a non-issue.", and many responses of neither type, so these correlations among Questions #2, #3, & #4 were also weak.
There were a number of comments to Question #6, regarding the ideal percentage of end of chapter problems suitable for inclusion in a salable student solution manual. Many were written by the plurality who chose 50% in Figure 2.
These comments recognized the diversity of opinion on all of the issues raised by the questionnaire, and suggested 50-50 as a workable compromise, acceptable to everyone.
For example: "...the solution is obvious - each textbook should have twice the [usual] number of problems ... and then print solutions to 50% [for students]. That way, the instructor can take his or her pick! There are good pedagogical reasons for each choice - the right mix depends on the instructor's teaching style, [the] ability of the students, [and the] character of the course. Since publishers don't pay much for worked problem solutions, it won't add much to the cost of the book."
There were also comments that represented the extreme 0% and 100% choices in Figure 2, such as: "Students do not learn physics by seeing how someone else solves a problem. Solutions should not be commercially published ... Students should not have access to any end-of-chapter problems. They should ... consult with TA's and other instructors to get their solutions checked.", and "I think it important to convince students that they get the most out of working a problem if they resist peeking at the answer until they've exhausted completely their ideas. But, at that point, getting to see the light, especially at 2 AM, should relieve frustration and give them an incentive to test themselves against the next challenge." A more general impression of respondent attitudes might better be conveyed by simply listing or excerpting written comments, without their specific association with particular items on the questionnaire. Often, comments were perceptive, provocative, or witty, in spite of an apparent preponderance of expressions of low expectation for student behavior and learning outcomes, and an occasional moralization. A subjective sampling, including some gems, is given in Appendix B. Conclusion The attitudes of this survey's sample of 249 physics instructors, concerning student access to solutions to end of chapter problems in a required textbook, can be summarized as follows: * Opinion is polarized on the questions of restricting student access to solutions for assigned problems, and not restricting those for unassigned problems. Majorities of instructors agree with both of these practices, but sizable minorities disagree with one. Common rationales given for restricting access are that problems are assigned for credit, and that students must be forced to think on their own. Contrary beliefs supporting free access are that students learn from correct examples, and that they need every available help. * Opinion is more evenly divided on the questions of whether free access to solutions encourages students to do more problems, and to give up less quickly. More instructors disagree with the former of these statements, and agree with the latter. A typical belief is that students lack the time or motivation for working on problems, regardless of their access to solutions, but that their work is less frustrating when access is available. * Opinion concerning the result of unrestricted student access to problem solutions is wide ranging. Many instructor focused responses mentioned adverse effects on the source and grading of homework problems. Many student focused responses predicted increased copying and memorization, but decreased learning and understanding. Attitudes on the over-all effect on student learning ranged from detrimental, to beneficial, to irrelevant. * Opinion about the ideal percentage of problem solutions, suitable for inclusion in a salable student solution manual, is indicated by the 41% average response, but a complex distribution was displayed. The most popular fraction, favored by 31% of the respondents, was one half (or 50%), but 27% of the respondents split, three to four, between all or none (i.e. 100% or 0%). Discussion Preliminary indications suggest that some of the following issues may tentatively be of interest for further study and examination:
* For most instructors of introductory physics, problem solving serves a dual purpose of enhancement and assessment of learning. Students are believed to grasp the full meaning and usefulness of physical concepts only by being able to apply them in solving contrived problems. Access to correct solutions to problems, illustrating physical reasoning from perhaps several viewpoints, is a part of the learning process which cannot be omitted. However, when the same problems are simultaneously used to evaluate and grade students, this access to solutions is restricted. It may be that a careful distinction should be made between these aspects of problem solving so as to avoid sending mixed messages to students.
* Problem solving is viewed as providing general educational or character-building benefits, besides just helping students to understand the concepts of physics. How to analyze a complex situation, how to apply effective methods of quantitative reasoning, perhaps how to struggle to overcome an intellectual challenge, and the value of hard work, are all worth learning. Such goals might have contributed to the moralistic flavor of some respondents' comments on the survey instrument, and their attitude towards student access to problem solutions. To what extent these objectives should be included and acknowledged in an introductory physics course is probably worthy of some attention.
* Many instructors believe that the control of knowledge represented by problem solutions, and the responsibility for dispensing it, is primarily their prerogative. Predictably, many students may believe differently, and resent this. Perhaps allowing students to exercise more responsibility for knowledge, and their own way of learning it, warrants further consideration.
* Many comments written by instructors expressed rather low expectations for student behavior regarding the utilization of problem solutions. Such negative attitudes may be communicated to students, unintentionally or not, and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rethinking how to project more positive attitudes to students may improve their learning outcomes, as well as their general reaction to physics. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge grants, for printing and mailing expenses, from Harper Collins College Publishers and the College of Arts and Sciences at U Mass - Boston. We also individually thank the 249 physics instructors who contributed their time and opinions participating in our survey.
George, Simon (1994). Update on the Status of the One-Year, Non-Calculus Physics Course. The Physics Teacher, 32, 344-346.
Mazur, Eric (1997), Peer Instruction: A User's anual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Serway, Raymond A. (1998). Principles of Physics, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.
Sisco, Burton & Hiemstra, Roger (1991). Individualizing
the Teaching & Learning Process. In Michael W. Galbraith, editor,
Facilitating Adult Learning. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.
Slavin, Robert E. (1994). Educational Psychology, 4th edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tipler, Paul A. (1991). Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd edition. New York: Worth Publishers.
Wall, J. D. & Wall, E. (1997). Introductory
Physics: A Problem Solving Approach. San Francisco: Analog Press.
Appendix A. Survey Instrument --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOLUTION MANUAL INSTRUCTOR SURVEY - FALL'95 INSTRUCTIONS (PLEASE READ). The following statements and questions refer to the teaching of a one-year introductory physics course, using the end-of-chapter problems in a required textbook. Indicate your answers by circling the appropriate number on the scale from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree), and by writing comments in your own words. 1. Student access to the solutions to the assigned problems 1 2 3 4 5 should be restricted. Please explain if, how, and why they should be restricted. 2. Student access to the solutions to unassigned problems 1 2 3 4 5 should not be restricted. Please explain. 3. Free access to solutions encourages students to do more 1 2 3 4 5 problems, even in addition to those assigned. Please comment on your answer. 4. Having no access to solutions causes students to give 1 2 3 4 5 up sooner, rather than work harder, in solving problems. Please comment. 5. What do you think would be the result of allowing students to have free access to the solutions to all of the end-of-chapter problems in a required text? 6. Currently, textbook publishers sell Student Solution Manuals containing 20% to 50% of the problems. What do you think is the ideal percentage? (Use a scale from 0% to 100%.)______ THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING. PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PAGE and RETURN TO YOUR DEPT. CHAIR, OR THE ADDRESS INDICATED. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENT INFORMATION (This survey is CONFIDENTIAL, in that no information will be presented in such a way that could permit the identification of any individual respondent.) Years of experience teaching at the college introductory level. 1 to 3 years____ 4 to 9 years____ 10 or more years____ none____ Is yours a two-year or four-year institution? 2-year____ 4-year____ What is your highest academic degree? Bachelors___ Masters____ Doctorate____ Name and address (OPTIONAL) _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Further comments: PLEASE ANSWER ALL ITEMS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PAGE, and RETURN THIS SURVEY TO YOUR DEPT. CHAIR, OR TO: Edw. S. Ginsberg U. Mass. Boston / Physics Dept. 100 Morrissey Blvd. Boston, MA 02125-3393 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix B. Selected Respondent Comments and Excerpted Remarks * "Today's students seem to give up a little too easily. Sooner or later, they have to learn to deal with a challenge..."
* "Students should be encouraged not to view solutions until after they have made a reasonable attempt. Counsel [them] on use, but leave [them] free access."
* "Given an answer, many students will go to great lengths to obtain that answer, in any manner possible. The approach seems to become 'How do I get this answer?', rather than 'How do I solve this problem?'."
* "... Nothing worthwhile comes easily. I don't know why there are student solution manuals available, other than because publishers make more money and physics teachers are ... too lazy to grade student homework themselves."
* "...I deplore the trend toward publishing even partial solution manuals for students. The point of physics problems is to challenge student understanding and to build the student's confidence... Textbooks contain plenty of worked-out examples ..., maybe too many. Students ... want instant gratification, quick answers, and absolutely no risk. Thinking is a risky operation; the answer doesn't always come right away."
* "What's to explain? [It is] ... a wonderful aid for learning when students study by doing unassigned problems. ... We grade on the layout and presentation of problem solutions ... How well they communicate how they solved the problem is given more emphasis than having the correct answer. ... The emphasis in my course is shifting to lab work, and just solving lots of problems is not as important to me as it used to be."
* "... I want students to struggle with [obtaining the] answer, realize they have a problem, and then see the answer when they come to class. ..."
* "Human nature will always defeat good intentions!"
* "Students must be supplied with acceptable models of how to solve problems. They cannot develop these strategies on their own ...[but] learn ... by modeling 'expert' methods."
* "... Success is only meaningful if failure is a possibility."
* "Students must repeatedly hit their heads against difficult problems. After trying, they should then be shown. The art of teaching is to determine the perfect period for the iterative process."
* "... when problem solutions are available, students will lean on them instead of figuring things out - there will be less learning. There are no 'solution sets' for real problems. Students need to learn how to work through hard stuff."
* "My guess is that it doesn't matter. Good students will still work hard and do well, and poor students will continue to scrape by, no matter what is done."
* "Students never do more problems."
* "Having solution manuals for sale is a publisher's money making scheme, regardless of ... [its] effect on learning."
* "... Easily available solutions short-circuits the thinking process. ..."
* "Students need challenge, but they also need access to full solutions. Getting stuck for two hours is not efficient or conducive of learning."
* "... Who needs someone to solve problems for which the answer is already known?"
* "We don't even give our graduate teaching assistants access to solution manuals. It breeds very, very bad habits that have to be broken if students are to succeed in a career."
* "We had a problem this year, in that the bookstore ordered some of these solution manuals and marked them as 'recommended', even though no faculty member had requested them. We didn't find out about it until the students started complaining ... [when the supply] had run out. Then we had to deal with the fact that only ... [some] of the students had access to them. In the future, I will give preference in textbook selection to ones that don't have a Student Solution Manual."
* "Solutions available - students memorize solutions and techniques of solutions, ... Solutions not available - student[s] unable to do problem, mental block."
* "The lazy, undisciplined, immature students should be protected from themselves."
* "A further erosion of the needed work ethic."
* "... [it is a] naïve assumption that students at the intro. level really want to learn. It is true that some do, but regrettably, they are few. ... I have concerns over free access to solutions. This does not mean that I want textbook publishers to abandon solution manuals (especially for instructors) ..."
* "I also rather disapprove of sending teaching faculty manuals of solutions to go with a textbook. If the instructor needs one, there is something seriously wrong!"
* "We currently do this [i.e. provide free access to all solutions] at ... [a large southern university]. It seems to work out well. ... If no access ... [is provided] you must have an excellent free tutoring service in place."
* "I do not like the current practice of giving students solutions to end-of-chapter problems. It is too difficult to assign homework that way. You are grading on how well they copy, not ... [on whether] they understand the material. Also, I don't have time to make up my own supplementary problems without answers ..."
* "Free access allows students to read , not do , problems, giving a false sense of understanding. No access causes students to interact with other students or faculty in pursuit of a correct answer."
* "We do this [i.e. provide free access to all solutions] in our first year course. Students use the these solutions to guide their problem solving."
* "The free market system will make solutions available, if students want them. If an instructor wants to restrict access, he/she should simply write new problems. ... [As a result of free access] students would pester the instructor less. On homework assignments, students would fudge their answers in order to make it appear (to [the] grader) that they did it right."
* "...I Xerox, therefore I know..."
* "... I am a strong believer in giving the students the answers, but not the entire solution. If solutions are given, there is too great an incentive to look when encountering the slightest difficulty."
About the authors...
Edward S. Ginsberg
Associate Professor of Physics
Office Address: Dept. of Physics, U. Mass. Boston, 100 Morrissey
Blvd, Boston, MA 02125-3393
Tel. 617-287-6059, FAX 617-287-6053
Degrees & Institutions: AB, ScB, Brown University; MS, PhD,
Stanford University.
Regina M. Panassuk
Assistant Professor of Mathematics and Science Education
Office Address: College of Education - West Campus, U. Mass.
Lowell, 1 University Ave., Lowell, MA 01854
Degrees & Institutions: BS (electrical engineering), St.
Petersburg Institute of Electrical Engineering; MS (mathematics),
St. Petersburg Pedagogical
University; PhD (mathematics education), St. Petersburg University.
Simon George
Professor of Physics
Office Address: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Calif. State
Univ., 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840
Degrees & Institutions: BS, University of . Travancore; MS,
University of. Saugar; PhD, University of British Columbia.
To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.
To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.